System and method to compute a pixel sensitivity map of an imaging device

ABSTRACT

An image calibration method includes capturing and correcting a flood field image for background signal and effects of known image-panel features (dead/bad pixels). The corrected image is processed to separate frequencies characteristic of relative pixel sensitivities from frequencies characteristic of radiation energy fluence. The incident energy fluence has a known maximum in-field energy fluence gradient. A model that describes the incident energy fluence on a detector is generated or received. The corrected image may be modeled at frequencies at or below the maximum in-field energy fluence gradient. A pixel sensitivity matrix (PSM) is generated by adjusting the corrected image with the model of the incident energy fluence on the detector. For example, the corrected image signal may be divided by the model or the model may be subtracted from the corrected image. The PSM may be used to correct additional raw images captured by the detector.

BACKGROUND

Radiation dosimetry and verification are key components of today'swork-flow of oncology clinics. With the current advancements in dosedelivery techniques, comes the need for comprehensive quality assurance(QA) procedures to ensure patient and staff safety. Electronic portalimaging devices (EPIDs) have been playing an increasing role in pre- andduring treatment quality assurance since they come pre-mounted on mostlinear accelerators and have high spatial resolution. Moreover, an EPIDcan be easily integrated into the clinical workflow, its signal readoutcan provide real-time feedback, and it can be deployed during treatmentfor transmission dosimetry. The EPID can capture exit-fluence radiationas cine images in the beam eye-view, which makes them ideal for transitdose QA and analysis of complex deliveries.

EPIDs were initially designed as imaging panels; flood-fieldcalibrations were utilized to normalize inherent pixel-to-pixelsensitivity variations to a resultant flat image. To use EPIDs as properdosimeter, the relative pixel sensitivities need to preserve thedosimetric integrity of the input beam, including the off-axis beamprofile. Methods of determining the pixel sensitivity matrix (PSM) whichconverts the EPID raw signal to a dosimetric response have beenpreviously reported, including using thick phantoms and large distancesto create a dosimetrically flat field, apply off-axis pixel responsecorrections and methods which cross-correlate pixel responses frommultiple measurements made while shifting the EPID with respect to afixed radiation field.

SUMMARY

A first aspect of the disclosure provides an image calibration method.The image calibration method comprises capturing a flood field signalwith an image detector from incident energy fluence produced by a signalsource. The method comprises separating frequency components of theflood field signal into frequency components characteristic ofvariations in the incident energy fluence and frequency componentscharacteristic of pixel-to-pixel sensitivity variations of the imagedetector. The method comprises determining a pixel sensitivity matrixfrom the flood field signal and the frequency components characteristicof variations in the incident energy fluence.

In some implementations of the first aspect of the disclosure,separating frequency components of the flood field signal comprisesgenerating a fluence-signal-fitted model that models the frequencycomponents characteristic of variations in the incident energy fluence.

In some implementations of the first aspect of the disclosure, thefluence-signal-fitted model has a frequency cut-off characteristic oftopological properties of the incident energy fluence.

In some implementations of the first aspect of the disclosure, thefrequency cut-off is a maximum in-field energy fluence gradient of theincident energy fluence.

In some implementations of the first aspect of the disclosure, thefluence-signal-fitted model is a surface-fit polynomial model, a surfacefitting model, a regional-surface fitting model, a weighted-surfacefitting model, a signal smoothing model, a low-pass filter model, asignal frequency decomposition model, a Fourier analysis model, or animage denoising model.

In some implementations of the first aspect of the disclosure, thefluence-signal-fitted model satisfies a condition that a derivative ofan incident energy fluence integral with respect to thefluence-signal-fitted model is minimized.

In some implementations of the first aspect of the disclosure, themethod further comprises correcting the flood field signal forbackground dark-field and/or bad pixels to produce a corrected imagesignal.

In some implementations of the first aspect of the disclosure,determining the pixel sensitivity matrix comprises adjusting thecorrected image signal based on the fluence-signal-fitted model. Forexample, the corrected image signal may be divided by thefluence-signal-fitted model. In another example, thefluence-signal-fitted model may be subtracted from the corrected imagesignal. Other adjustments to the corrected image signal based on thefluence-signal-fitted model are contemplated.

In some implementations of the first aspect of the disclosure, themethod further comprises capturing an image with the image detector ofan object irradiated by energy fluence produced by the signal source andcorrecting the image of the object using the pixel sensitivity matrix.

In some implementations of the first aspect of the disclosure, the imagedetector is an electronic portal imaging device.

A second aspect of the disclosure provides an imaging system. Theimaging system comprises a signal source, an image detector, and acontroller configured to calibrate the image detector. The controller isconfigured to capture a flood field signal with an image detector fromincident energy fluence produced by a signal source. The controller isfurther configured to separate frequency components of the flood fieldsignal into frequency components characteristic of variations in theincident energy fluence and frequency components characteristic ofpixel-to-pixel sensitivity variations of the image detector. Thecontroller is further configured to determine a pixel sensitivity matrixfrom the flood field signal and the frequency components characteristicof variations in the incident energy fluence.

In some implementations of the second aspect of the disclosure, toseparate frequency components of the flood field signal, the controlleris further configured to generate a fluence-signal-fitted model thatmodels the frequency components characteristic of variations in theincident energy fluence.

In some implementations of the second aspect of the disclosure, thefluence-signal-fitted model has a frequency cut-off characteristic oftopological properties of the incident energy fluence.

In some implementations of the second aspect of the disclosure, thefrequency cut-off is a maximum in-field energy fluence gradient of theincident energy fluence.

In some implementations of the second aspect of the disclosure, thefluence-signal-fitted model is a surface-fit polynomial model, a surfacefitting model, a regional-surface fitting model, a weighted-surfacefitting model, a signal smoothing model, a low-pass filter model, asignal frequency decomposition model, a Fourier analysis model, or animage denoising model.

In some implementations of the second aspect of the disclosure, thefluence-signal-fitted model satisfies a condition that a derivative ofan incident energy fluence integral with respect to thefluence-signal-fitted model is minimized.

In some implementations of the second aspect of the disclosure, thecontroller is further configured to correct the flood field signal forbackground dark-field and/or had pixels to produce a corrected imagesignal.

In some implementations of the second aspect of the disclosure, todetermine the pixel sensitivity matrix, the controller is furtherconfigured to adjust the corrected image signal by thefluence-signal-fitted model. For example, the corrected wage signal maybe divided by the fluence-signal-fitted model. In another example, thefluence-signal-fitted model may be subtracted from the corrected imagesignal. Other adjustments to the corrected image signal based on thefluence-signal-fitted model are contemplated.

In some implementations of the second aspect of the disclosure, thecontroller is further configured to capture an image with the imagedetector of an object irradiated by energy fluence produced by thesignal source and correct the image of the object using the pixelsensitivity matrix.

In some implementations of the second aspect of the disclosure, theimage detector is an electronic portal imaging device.

These and other features will be more clearly understood from thefollowing detailed description taken in conjunction with theaccompanying drawings and claims.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

For a more complete understanding of the present disclosure, referenceis now made to the following brief description, taken in connection withthe accompanying drawings and detailed description, wherein likereference numerals represent like parts. The patent or application filecontains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patentor patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be providedby the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.

FIG. 1 is a system block diagram for an imaging system, suitable forimplementing the several embodiments of the disclosure.

FIG. 2 is a calibration method for the imaging system of FIG. 1 ,suitable for implementing the several embodiments of the disclosure.

FIG. 3 is an image capture and correction method for the imaging systemof FIG. 1 , suitable for implementing the several embodiments of thedisclosure.

FIG. 4A is an example of a corrected electronic portal imaging device(EPID) signal for a 6 MV beam with a flattening filter acquired atsource-to-imager distance (SID) equal to 150 cm, suitable forimplementing the several embodiments of the disclosure.

FIG. 4B is an example of a corrected EPID signal for a 6 MVflattening-filter-free (FFF) beam acquired at a SID equal to 180 cm.

FIG. 4C is a surface fitted to the signal in FIG. 4A, suitable forimplementing the several embodiments of the disclosure.

FIG. 4D is a surface fitted to the signal in FIG. 4B, suitable forimplementing the several embodiments of the disclosure.

FIG. 4E are diagonal profiles of signals that demonstrate how well thesurface models of FIGS. 4C & 4D fit the corrected EPID images in FIGS.4A & 4B.

FIG. 4F is a convergence of fluence-signal derivative and the PSML∞-norm during the extraction of the underlying fluence-signal in FIGS.4A and 4B with various degrees of the polynomial-based fittings.

FIG. 5A shows a pixel sensitivity map (PSM) generated for a 6 MVflattened photon beam measured at SID equal to 150 cm.

FIG. 5B is a PSM generated for 6 MV photon beam without flatteningfilter measured at SID equal to 180 cm.

FIG. 5C is a graph showing the effect of changing the fitting model on apixel sensitivity histogram for 6 MV beam with a flattening filter.

FIG. 5D is a graph showing the effect of changing the fitting model onpixels sensitivity histogram for 6 MV FFF beam.

FIG. 5E shows a fractional error between signals in FIGS. 5A & 5B.

FIG. 6A is a X profile of the percent difference of PSMs for differentconfigurations and the PSM shown in FIG. 5B.

FIG. 6B is a Y profile of the percent difference of PSMs for differentconfigurations and the PSM shown in FIG. 5B.

FIG. 6C is a percent difference image between PSMs generated with 6 MVFFF beam and 10 MV FFF beam, both measured at SID=180 cm.

FIGS. 7A & 7B show raw and PSM-corrected profiles through the center ofthe EPID for the 6 MV flattened beam measured at SID=100 cm in the X andY directions, respectively.

FIGS. 8A & 8B show overlays of PSM-corrected 6 MV measurements.

FIGS. 8C & 8D show the relative output from the x and y profiles,respectively.

FIG. 9 illustrates an exemplary computer system suitable forimplementing the several embodiments of the disclosure.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

It should be understood at the outset that although illustrativeimplementations of one or more embodiments are illustrated below, thedisclosed systems and methods may be implemented using any number oftechniques, whether currently known or in existence. The disclosureshould in no way be limited to the illustrative implementations,drawings, and techniques illustrated below, but may be modified withinthe scope of the appended claims along with their full scope ofequivalents. Use of the phrase “and/or” indicates that any one or anycombination of a list of options can be used. For example, “A, B, and/orC” means “A”, or “B”, or “C”, or “A and B”, or “A and C”, or “B and C”,or “A and B and C”.

Disclosed herein is a new procedure to compute a pixel sensitivity map(PSM) for Electronic portal imaging device (EPID) detectors. The PSM isdetermined for EPIDs using a single flood field signal. The methodincludes obtaining the uncorrected signal from irradiation of the wholeactive EPID panel with an open radiation field. The method thendetermines the PSM by separating the high-frequency pixel-to-pixelsensitivity variations from the low-frequency radiation energy fluencevariations and the periodic imaging panel features. The PSM is computedfor multiple beam energies, with and without flattening filters. Themethod to compute the PSM does not require shifting the END panel, andtherefore is not subject to error-propagation buildup inherent topanel-shifting methods. Furthermore, the shift-less method can be usedas an automatic imager calibration procedure which is applicable tofixed-geometry imaging panels, such as those installed on Varian Ethos®and MR linac treatment machines.

The PSM is a map of the relative sensitivity of the individual imagerpixels. It is used to convert the raw pixel signal measured by theimager, into the energy fluence-dependent detector signal (shorted tofluence-signal in the remainder of the document) through correcting fordetector-element dependent sensitivity variations. Despite not knowingthe exact fluence-signal, the incident energy fluence topologicalproperties have a known frequency cut-off. The topological features ofthe imager and its read-out are also known. Therefore, the PSM isascertained by obtaining a raw signal, removing background signal andimager-panel features, then separating high-and low frequency features.The low frequency features correspond to the incident radiationfluence-signal and the high frequency features corresponds to thedetector-element dependent perturbations.

A raw EPID signal results from the incident particle energy fluence, theinherent pixels response, and the background signal. In large openfields, particle energy fluence is a slow varying signal that is locallyconsidered spatially-constant. Pixel response is a fast and abruptvarying behavior. The background signal is due to the EPID panelelectronics which is determined during radiation absence.

To determine the PSM, after correcting for the background signal, amodel is applied that captures the underlying smooth particle energyfluence-induced-signal. This fluence-signal-filled model is then used todetermine the PSM. For example, the EPID flood image may be adjustedusing the model (e.g., scaled by the model or having the modelsubtracted from the EPID flood image) to determine the PSM.

An EPID image results from the incident energy fluence interacting withthe EPID detection unit, resulting in the creation of secondaryelectrons which interact with a screen and/or the pixel photo-diodes.For the EPIDs in various examples provided herein, the majority (˜90%)of the radiation induced signal recorded by pixel photo-diodes,I_(raw)(x, y) is from light produced from electron and photoninteractions with a Gd₂O₂S:Tb screen, while the remaining signal is fromdirect interactions with the photo-diodes. The raw measured EPID signalis due to three main components, namely: the incident particle energyfluence, the inherent imager response to the incident energy fluence,and the detector background signal. Thus, the raw pixel reading atposition (x, y) on the PPM coordinate system is formulated asI _(raw)(x,y)=Ψ(x,y)⊗P(x,y)+I _(bg)(x,y),  (1)where I_(raw)(x, y) is the raw pixel signal, Ψ(x, y) is the energyfluence incident on imager at the pixel location, P(x, y) is the ENDpixel detector-element response, and I_(bg)(x, y) is the pixelbackground (e.g., a signal recorded when there is no incident fluence).

The pixel sensitivity matrix, P(x, y)∀(x, y), accounts for the relativespatially differential response of the screen plus the photo-diode andits read-out, whether it is from the spatially non-uniform response ofthe screen, differential energy dependence of the screen response,non-uniform response of the photo-diode signal generation and detection,or the photo-diode read-out electronics. While P(x, y) could besub-divided into a product of factors for each of the above-mentionedsub-components, such sub-division provides no benefit in determining andcorrecting for the PSM. The raw pixel signal after subtracting thebackground hereafter is called the corrected pixel signal:I _(c)(x,y)=I _(raw)(x,y)=I _(bg)(x,y),  (2)where I_(c)(x, y) is the corrected pixel signal, I_(raw)(x, y) is theraw pixel signal, and I_(bg)(x, y) is pixel background.

The PSM method is based upon the fact that the signal I_(c) results froma smooth energy fluence surface Ψ superimposed with thespatially-dependent detector response P. P can therefore be estimatedand/or modeled by removing frequency components greater than a maximumenergy fluence gradient via multiple different methods. For example, Pcan be modeled using Fourier analysis, image denoising, or surfacefitting. In various implementations, during the modeling of P, theEPID's pixel defect map may be used to exclude the contribution of bador unresponsive pixels to the fitted model. Equation (1) treats EPIDpixels in a spatially-independent manner; therefore, a pixel whosesignal is not proportional to the incident energy fluence does notimpact its adjacent pixel readings, but rather may be treated as a badpixel where its value could be computed from the mean or median of itsneighbor pixel values.

For therapy linacs, in flattening-filter-free (FFF) mode, the energyfluence shape is characteristic of Bremsstrahlung radiation sources, acenter-peaked smooth energy fluence surface which broadens as it movesaway from the radiation source. When a flattening filter is utilized,the in-air energy fluence is nominally flat, but the in-air energyfluence surface attains a dip at the beam central axis and has off-axishorns. For both FFF and flattened beams the energy fluence profile issmooth with low gradients. In the absence of beam collimating and addedattenuating devices, the maximum in-field energy fluence gradientmeasured in air occurs for highest energy FFF beams at close proximityto the radiation source. In an example, a 10×FFF beam measured at SIDequal to 100 cm has a maximum gradient of 0.41%/mm, while for a 6×FFFbeam the maximum gradient is 0.28%/mm measured at the same SID.

In an example, for simplicity, a polynomial is fit to that describes theunderlying smooth energy fluence surface, but is incapable of capturingthe high frequency pixels sensitivity changes. The polynomial-basedregression surface model in both x and y dimensions is used to model thefluence-signal-fitted model. Since most of the fluence-signal isrepresented by the area under slow-varying envelopes, an optimal fittingmodel is defined herein as the minimal-degree model which captures mostof the measured fluence. Mathematically, an optimal fitting modelsatisfies the condition that the derivative of the fluence-signalintegral with respect to the model degree is ideally zero.

Equation (1) has two spatially-dependent unknown terms Ψ(x, y) and P(x,y). The open field Ψ(x, y) used in the pixel calibration has low spatialvariations, which when combined with the sharpness of EPID energydeposition kernels allows the convolution in Equation 1 to be simplifiedto a multiplication with sufficient accuracy for the purposes here.

Extracting the PSM can be accomplished using:P≤I _(C)/Ψif Ψ=Ψ(x,y)∀(x,y),  (3)where P is the spatially-dependent detector response, I_(C) is thecorrected pixel signal, and Ψ is the energy fluence incident on imagerat a pixel location. As described above, the corrected pixel valuesI_(C)=I_(c)(x, y)∀(x, y) are known. Since I_(C) and Ψ are notindependently known, we decouple Ψ and P by utilizing their fundamentalcharacteristics to determine I_(c); Ψ has spatial variationcharacteristics of the incident fluence, while P has characteristics ofrelative pixel response.

To validate the generated PSM, PSMs are computed for multiple beamenergies are measured with and without flattening filters and formultiple source-to-imager distances. Since the PSM is a detectorcharacteristic, it should be independent of the beam energy andsource-to-imager distance (SID) variables. Inter-comparativemeasurements of fixed slit fields with the EPID being shifted betweenmeasurements is also performed.

In an experiment, the fluence-signal of the flattening-filter-free (FFF)beams were optimally modeled as a 12th degree polynomial surfaces whichhad ≤0.1% residuals near the central axis. A 6 MV FFF PSM and a 1.0 MVFFF PSM were within ˜0.1%, and independent of the EPID SID, suggestingthat the PSM is energy independent. PSMs from a 6 MV, 10 MV, and 15 MVflattened-beam were well-modeled as 12th degree polynomial surfaces,which were equivalent within ˜0.24% but differed from the FFF PSM by upto 0.5% near the beam central axis. Applying the FFF PSMs to theflattened-beam measurements reduced the central-axis deviation betweenthe raw and corrected signal to <0.1%, confirming the PSM energyindependence hypothesis. When the FFF PSM is utilized, outputverification with shifted slit deliveries agreed within ˜0.5% for allbeam energies, which is within the radiation delivery uncertainty of˜0.57%.

PSM for MV EPIDs can be determined by separating out the slowly varying,well behaved fluence-signal from the pixel-to-pixel sensitivityvariations. The quality of the PSM is found to be dependent on thequality of the surface fit, which is best for the 6 MV FFF beam measuredat an SID equal to 180 cm. Within fitting errors, the PSM is independentof beam energy for 6, 10, and 15 MV beams with and without flatteningfilters. The PSM generation does not require shifting the EPID panel normultiple EPID panel irradiations and should be usable for linacs withfixed geometry EPIDs.

FIG. 1 is a system block diagram for an imaging system 100, suitable forimplementing the several embodiments of the disclosure. The imagingsystem 100 includes a signal source 102, a flat panel detector 106, anda controller 108.

The signal source 102 directly or indirectly provides incident energyfluence for detection by the flat panel detector 106. For example, thesignal source 102 may be a linear accelerator that irradiates aphosphorescing screen 104, such as a Gd₂O₂S:Tb screen for generating anindirect incident energy fluence on the detector 106. In other examples,the signal source 102 may be a light source for generating and directlysupplying an incident energy fluence on the detector 106. In anotherexample, a laser may directly or indirectly supply an incident energyfluence on the detector 106. For example, upon irradiation of tissue ata particular frequency, the laser may induce fluorescence in the tissueso as to supply an incident energy fluence on the detector 106. Otherexamples of the signal source 102 directly or indirectly supplying anincident energy fluence to the detector 106 are contemplated by thisdisclosure.

The flat panel detector 106 may be any detector suitable for detectingan incident energy fluence supplied by the signal source 102. In variousexamples, the detector 106 may be a two-dimensional array, a lineararray, or any other known configuration of energy fluence detectors(e.g., imaging sensors). The detector 106 may be mounted in a stationaryposition, moveable in a coupled relationship to the signal source 102(e.g., as the detector 106 is moved, the signal source 102 is likewisemoved to maintain an initial relative spatial configuration between thedetector 106 and the signal source 102), moveable in a mannerindependent from the signal source 102, or any other known spatialconfiguration of a detector 106. In various implementations, one or morefilters, lenses, or other optical elements (not shown) may be positionedwithin a path between the signal source 102 and the detector 106.

The controller 108 is electrically coupled to the signal source 102 andthe detector 106. The controller 108 is configured to control operationof the signal source 102. For example, the controller 408 is configuredto initiate generation of an imaging signal for causing an energyfluence signal to be incident on the detector 106. For example, thecontroller 108 may control the timing of when to initiate signalgeneration, a power level, frequency, duration, modulation, or any othercharacteristic of the generated imaging signal.

The controller 108 is also configured to capture and process images readfrom the detector 106. For example, the controller 108 is configured tocapture a dark field image, a flood field image, and a raw image. Thecontroller 108 uses the dark field image to capture the flood fieldimage to produce a corrected image signal, described above. Likewise,the controller 108 is configured to generate or receive a model of theincident energy fluence of the flood field image. For example, the modelmay be generated on a separate device (not shown) and supplied to thecontroller 108. The controller 108 is configured to generate a PSM forthe detector 106 using the corrected image signal and the model, asdescribed above. The PSM may be stored locally on a memory accessible tothe controller 108 or on a remote calibration server (not shown). Uponcapturing the raw image, the controller 108 is configured to correct theraw image using the PSM. Alternatively, the controller 108 supplies thecaptured images to an external device (not shown) for performing theprocessing described above.

In various implementations, the controller 108 may periodically generatea new PSM. For example, after a predetermined period of time e.g.,hours, days, years), a predetermined number of imaging cycles e.g., 10,100, 1000, 10,000), or other periodic occurrence, the controller 108 maygenerate a new PSM to replace a prior PSM for the detector 106. In someimplementations, because there is no need to shift the detector panel106, the controller 108 may generate a new PSM at each imagingoperation.

While one controller 108 is shown, it is contemplated that separatecontrollers may be provided for controlling the signal source 102,capturing image signals read from the detector 106, and processing thecaptured image signals. Other variations of the control architecture ofthe system 100 are contemplated by this disclosure.

FIG. 2 is a calibration method 200 for the imaging system 100 of FIG. 1, suitable for implementing the several embodiments of the disclosure.At 202, the signal source 102 generates an imaging signal for producingan incident energy fluence on the detector 106. The controller 108captures a flood field image generated by the incident energy fluence onthe detector 106. At 204, the controller 108 generates a corrected imagethrough correction of the flood field image by removal of a backgroundsignal and effects of known image-panel features. For example, a darkfield image may be captured by the controller 108 and subtracted fromthe flood field image to remove the background signal. Additionally, thecontroller 108 may use a dead/bad pixel map of the detector 106 andreplace the values of dead/bad pixels with an average value of theirsurrounding neighboring pixels. Other known corrections for dead/badpixels are contemplated by this disclosure.

At 206, the controller 108 processes the corrected image to separatefrequencies characteristic of relative pixel sensitivities fromfrequencies characteristic of radiation energy fluence. For example, theincident energy thence has a known maximum in-field energy fluencegradient. The controller 108 generates or receives a model thatdescribes the incident energy fluence on the detector 106. The correctedimage is modeled at frequencies at or below the maximum in-field energyfluence gradient. For example, the model mays be a polynomial fit of thesurface of the incident energy fluence on the detector 106 up to themaximum in-field energy fluence gradient, a Fourier transform of thecorrected image truncated at the maximum in-field energy fluencegradient, or any other image denoising technique to separate frequenciesin the corrected image above the maximum in-field energy fluencegradient.

At 208, the controller 108 generates the PSM from the corrected imageand the frequencies characteristic of radiation energy fluence. That is,the controller 108 generates the PSM by adjusting the corrected imagewith the model of the incident energy fluence on the detector 106. Forexample, the controller 108 may divide the corrected image signal by themodel or subtract the model from the corrected image. Other mathematicaloperations for adjusting the corrected image with the model to generatethe PSM are contemplated by this disclosure.

FIG. 3 is an image capture and correction method 300 for the imagingsystem 100 of FIG. 1 , suitable for implementing the several embodimentsof the disclosure. After obtaining the PSM of the detector 106, rawimages captured by the detector 106 may be corrected using the PSM. At302, the controller 108 captures a raw image from the detector 106. At304, the raw image is corrected for background signal (e.g., dark fieldimage is subtracted from the raw image), a dead/bad pixels (e.g., map ofthe dead/bad pixels for the detector 106 is used to replace the valuesof dead/bad pixels with an average value of their surroundingneighboring pixels), and PSM (e.g., the PSM is subtracted from the rawimage). Other image correction methods and mathematical operations forcorrecting the raw age using a dark-field image, dead/bad pixel map, andPSM are contemplated by this disclosure. At 306, a corrected image isgenerated and output by the controller 108. For example, the correctedimage may be stored locally or transmitted to an external device forstorage, viewing, or further processing.

EXAMPLE 1

In various examples, measurements were performed with an amorphoussilicon EPID aS1000 mounted on TrueBeam linear accelerator (VarianMedical systems, Palo Alto, Calif., USA). The aS1000 spatial resolutionis 1024×768 pixels covering an active detector area of 40×30 cm². Thedimensions of a single detector pixel are 0.039×0.039 cm². The aS1000EPID has a maximum off-axis shifts equal to 15, 16, 6, and 7 cm in the+x, −x, +y, and −y directions, in the linear accelerator coordinatesystem, respectively. In the z-axis, the maximum and minimum SIDs are183 and 95 cm, respectively. EPID measurements were acquired at SIDsequal to 100, 150 and 180 cm for 6, 10, and 15 MV beams with flatteningfilters (WFF) in addition to 6 and 10 MV flattening filter free (FFF)beams.

Data Acquisition and Calibration

A QA system is used for image acquisitions and utilization of thegenerated PSM. This avoids the need to reconstruct the raw END imagesfrom the background and flood-field corrected images available from theVarian X-Ray Imaging System (XI).

The QA system utilizes an independent frame grabber on an independentcomputer to directly read the cine raw images in real-time as they areacquired at ˜10 Hz. The Varian EPID software was set to acquire imagesin dosimetry mode, which, for the TrueBeam 1.5 system used, may beconfigured to yield images with no correction/calibration for thedark-field, flood field, or beam profile by the treatment consolesoftware. Corrected EPID signals acquired in either imaging or dosimetrymode would work with the method, as would images acquired directly withthe XI system, provided that the raw images were reconstructed from thecorrected EPID images. Per-frame EPID signal saturation was avoided byusing the lowest possible dose rates for the FFF beams, i.e., 600 MU/minfor 6×FFF and 400 MU/min for 10×FFF. For each source-to-imager distance(i.e., 100 cm, 150 cm and 180 cm), the open-field size was set to coverthe active area of the imaging panel, i.e., 40×30 cm² at the SID plus anextra 0.5-1.0 cm margin beyond the imager boundary.

Each EPID image processed resulted from a cine acquisition of imageframes until a total of 250 MUs are delivered. The large MU deliverieswere used to minimize the effect of readout artifacts. Post-acquisition,partial image frames acquired at the beginning and end of the beamdelivery were removed, and the remaining frames are summed. Ignoring thepartial frame removal would have had a <<1% effect on the PSMs for 250and greater MU deliveries.

The pixel defect map (PDM) for the EPID device is obtained from thelinac calibration data repository. The PDM is computed during theperiodic EPID calibration process by the linac manufacturer algorithms.The map is used to identify the dead/bad pixels on the imager panel andreplace their values with the average value of their surroundingneighboring pixels.

Imager background used in the processing was from a (temporally local)background collection; the average of ≥250 frames recorded during abeam-off session was sufficiently delayed from the beam-on session toguarantee a ghosting-free EPID signal, but within the measurementsession. Signal collection is integrated into a single image for twomain reasons; first, the apparent banding artifact of individual imagestend to wash out in the averaging process. Second, the integrationimproved the total signal-to-noise ratio, thereby reducing uncertaintyin the associated computed pixel sensitivity map. For the aS1000, theamorphous-silicon pixel array consists of 128 pixel columns connected toindependent channel charge amplifiers. A gate driver is connected to therows of a pixel array which stages the image readout through the pixelsthin film transistors (TFT). Thus, the aS1000 EPID has 8 vertical signalreading groups which may feature step-wise linear-signal patterns due toindependent circuitry. After dark current and defective pixel correctionof the EPID image, the linear signal trends, in the 128×768 sub-panelsfor aS1000 EPID, are corrected through the following signal “de-banding”method.

First, the signal of each reading group is separated into linear andnon-linear terms. The linear term is the best-fit plane (i.e., 128×768pixels for a sub panel of an aS1000 EPID) calculated through theleast-square method. The non-linear term is the signal fluctuatingaround the best-fit plane. Second, the y-coefficient (i.e., the slope)of the best-fit plane equation is set to zero so that signal gradient inthe y direction is eliminated. This procedure corrects for anydistortion of the measured signal due to beam asymmetry in the ydirection or the multiplexed signal readout of the pixel matrix rows ofdiodes. Lastly, continuity of the signal is enforced for all best-fitplanes, of all sub panels, at the boundaries in the x-direction. Thisstep involves equating the offset term of plane equation calculated forall sub panels of the EPID active matrix. This procedure normalizes thelinear f step-wise features of the full EPID signal.

Regression Approach Validation

Since the PSM is characteristic of the detector and its associatedreadout, it should be independent of the beam delivery mode, the ENDsource-to-imager distance (SID), and lateral offsets of the EPID. Assuch, PSMs are independently determined for each photon beam deliverymode available on the linac at multiple SIDs, then these PSMs areintercompared to establish independence. In total, PSMs were computedfor 15 different beam configurations, resulting in 15 different fluencepolynomial models for the measured signals at 3 different SIDs 100 cm,150 cm, and 180 cm), 3 different energies (i.e., 6 MV, 10 MV, and 15 MV)and 2 different flattening filter configurations (WFF and FFF for 6 MVand 10 MV). The pixel-by-pixel deviations of these PSMs is evaluated toquantify the PSM precision. In this process, the preferred delivery modeand SID for determining the PSM was also identified. For fixed radiationfields, field measurements were inter-compared spanning a range oflateral offsets that could be attained by the imager to confirm positionindependence. This, in effect, cross-validates the method with those whointer-related shifted EPID measurements to derive the PSM. For thisseries of measurements, the imager was placed at the isocenter plane andthe jaws adjusted to produce long-narrow beams (slits) on the EPIDimager. In the imager x-direction, a 2 cm (˜50 pixels) by 30 cm x-slitis formed. Image resulting from repeated 250 MU deliveries wereacquired, with the EPID shifted between acquisitions by distances equalto 2n cm, where n=±3, ±2, ±3, . . . , until the full EPID extent iscovered. Similarly, acquisitions with a 40 cm by 1 cm y-slit wereacquired. The consistency of the presently disclosed PSM with the PSMone would get with a shifting method is evaluated by evaluating thepixel-wise variance in the x-slit and y-slit output measurements.

RESULTS Input Signals and Fluence-Signal Fits

Two 6 MV flood field EPID images for the aS1000 EPID panel, that wereused as inputs to the PSM generation algorithm, are shown in FIGS. 4Aand 4B. FIG. 4A is an example of a corrected EPID signal for a 6 MV beamwith a flattening filter acquired at SID equal to 150 cm. The signal inFIG. 4A has the beam flattening filter and was acquired at SID equal to150 cm. FIG. 4B is an example of a corrected EPID signal for a 6 MV FFFbeam acquired at a SID equal to 180 cm. The image in FIG. 4B is for FFFbeam and was acquired at SID equal to 180 cm. Both signals werecorrected for background dark-field and bad pixels, then normalized tothe range [0,1]. Faint vertical strips can be seen in the images,particularly at n×128 pixel indices, where n=1 to 7 in the x-direction,due to differences in the electronic readout of the detector sub-panelsdespite the fact that EPID step-wise, i.e., sub-panel, signal featureswere normalized using the signal “de-banding” method discussed above.These residual bands are inconsequential.

FIGS. 4C and 4D show the fitted fluence-signal surfaces to the flattenedbeam signal of FIG. 4A and the FFF beam signal of FIG. 4B, respectively,after the application of the sub-panel corrections. That is, FIG. 4C isa surface fitted to the signal in FIG. 4A and FIG. 4D is a surfacefitted to the signal in FIG. 4B. The EPID central pixel is marked with a‘+’ and the fluence-signal maximum or minimum is marked with a ‘×’ inFIGS. 4C and 4D. The virtual fluence-signal surfaces shown in FIGS. 4Cand 4D are constructed using a polynomial model of the form:Ψ(x,y)=Σ_(n=0) ^(Ox)Σ_(m=0) ^(Oy) p _(nm) x ^(n) y ^(m),  (4)where the coefficients p_(nm) are found via linear least squaresregression. The fits shown are for a 12-degree polynomial fits in the xand y directions.

FIGS. 4C and 4D also show locations of the beam's central axes (‘+’symbol) and the minimum and maximum of the fitted fluences (“×” symbol)of FIGS. 4A and 4B, respectively. The offset is primarily in they-direction. In the x-direction, FIGS. 4C and 4D show the fitted surfacesymmetry which is impacted only by the actual beam symmetry in thex-direction. Moreover, the curvatures of the fitted surfaces aredifferent because of the existence of the flattening filter in the beamof FIG. 4C which shows the slowly rising off-axis horns compared to thefast declining of the forward-directed FFF beam of FIG. 4B. The fittedsurfaces can be clearly identified as concave and convex, from the beamseye-view direction, for flattened 6 MV beam in FIG. 4C and the FFF 6 MVbeam in FIG. 4D, respectively.

FIG. 4E shows diagonal profiles of signals that demonstrate how well thesurface models of FIGS. 4C & 4D fit the corrected EPID images in FIGS.4A & 4B. FIG. 4E shows diagonal profiles of the correctedfluence-signals in FIGS. 4A and 4B overlaid with their correspondingsurface model values from FIGS. 4C and 4D, respectively.

To determine the optimal order of the regression models in FIGS. 4C and4D, a convergence test was conducted. The test involves successivecalculation of the derivative of the fluence-signal integral usingincreasing cut-off polynomial order. Here a suitable cut-off limit wassought that maintains a fixed total measured fluence. The results of theconvergence test are shown in FIG. 4F. FIG. 4F is a convergence offluence-signal derivative and the PSM L∞-norm during the extraction ofthe underlying fluence-signal in FIGS. 4A and 4B with various degrees ofthe polynomial-based fittings. It was found that the derivative of theintegral fluence-signal converges toward the 12^(th) order polynomialmodels, in the x and y dimensions, for both PSM models. The inset plotof FIG. 4F shows the maximum absolute output change for a 1×1 cm²radiation field (i.e., average of 25×25 pixels) by the PSMs under study.The infinity norms of the PSMs also converge approximately at the12^(th) degree regression models. Due to complexities of the surfacefeatures introduced by the flattening filters, slightly betterconvergence is observed for the FFF beams PSM over the flattened beamsPSM. In the inset plot of FIG. 4F, the minimum L∞-norm value representsthe true variance in the PSM and the deviation from this value is anuncertainly in the measurement.

Thus, considering a delivery accuracy of ˜0.5%, upon the application ofthis PSM to an EPID dose map, a relative dose accuracy within ≤2% isreached at a polynomial cut-off around 4^(th) degree for the FFF PSM and5^(th) for the flattened beam PSM and a dose accuracy within 0.5% isachievable at a cut-off order of 10^(th) degree for the FFF PSM and14^(th) degree for the flattened beam PSM.

Pixels Sensitivity Maps

The 12-degree polynomial fit generated pixel sensitivity maps for thebeam configurations in FIGS. 4A and 4B are shown in FIGS. 5A and 5B,respectively. FIG. 5A shows a pixel sensitivity map (PSM) generated fora 6 MV flattened photon beam measured at SID equal to 150 cm. FIG. 5B isa PSM generated for 6 MV photon beam without flattening filter measuredat SID equal to 180 cm. The mottling features of the two maps aresimilar, however, intensity differences near the PSM centers areapparent in the difference image of FIG. 5E. FIG. 5E is shows afractional error between signals in FIGS. 5A & 5B. Pixel sensitivitydistributions of FIGS. 5A and 5B and for other order polynomial fits arepresented in FIGS. 5C and 5D. FIG. 5C is a graph showing the effect ofchanging the fitting model on a pixel sensitivity histogram for 6 MVbeam with a flattening filter. FIG. 5D is a graph showing the effect ofchanging the fitting model on pixels sensitivity histogram for 6 MV FFFbeam. The legends indicate the order of the fitted polynomials in both xand y directions. The clotted black curves in FIGS. 5C and 5D are normaldistributions fitted to the pixels sensitivity distributions with meansequal to 0.9995 and standard deviations equal to 0.0055 and 0.0061 forPSM in FIGS. 5A and 5B, respectively.

For the 12-degree polynomial, the relative pixel sensitivities arenormal distributions. The one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test confirmsthat both distributions, for polynomial degrees>4, in FIGS. 5C and 5Dpass the normality test at ˜100% confidence level. FIGS. 5C and 5D showthe effect of the order of the polynomial surface model on the pixelsensitivity distribution. For the 6 MV flattened beam, each successivepolynomial narrows the sensitivity distributions as they become morenormally distributed. For the 6 MV FFF beam the 2^(nd) and 3^(rd) degreepolynomials are clearly inadequate, but there is little differencebetween the 4^(th) and 5^(th) degree fits. These findings are expecteddue to the inherent symmetrical nature of the lower-degree polynomialsand the limitation in feature capturing of the EPID's signal that hasvarious local characteristics due to the energy fluence backscatteringby the underlying EPID's metal components. At slightly higher degree ofthe fitting polynomials, the models capture all fluence-signal features,leaving out the pixel-to-pixel variations of the PSM.

PSM Energy Independence

The PSM beam energy dependence/independence can be illustrated byevaluating the pixel-by-pixel percent difference between the PSM in FIG.5B and PSMs generated with different beam configurations using theformula 100×(1−PSM/PSM_(ref)). Profiles through the percent differencemaps are given in FIGS. 6A and 6B. FIG. 6A is a X profile of the percentdifference of PSMs for different configurations and the PSM shown inFIG. 5B. FIG. 6B is a Y profile of the percent difference of PSMs fordifferent configurations and the PSM shown in FIG. 5B. The PSMpercent-difference profiles for the flattened 6, 10 and 15 MV beams showfast-varying features that were largely cancelled out, leaving onlyslow-varying features which show the inexactness of capturing theunderlying fluence-signal. On the other hand, the profiles of the 6 and10 MV FFF PSMs are reproducible within ≤0.1% as emphasized by the 2Ddifference image in FIG. 6C. FIG. 6C is a percent difference imagebetween PSMs generated with 6 MV FFF beam and 10 MV FFF beam, bothmeasured at SID=180 cm. FIG. 6C shows that PSMs generated withflattening filter free (FFF) beams are indistinguishable within ˜0.1%.All measurements occurred at SID equal to 100 cm, except the referenceprofile, in FIG. 5B, and the 10 MV FFF profile were measured at SID=180cm. The optimal modeled PSMs, calculated for all commissioned energybeams, are practically indistinguishable; the mean and standarddeviation of the mean, max, min and standard deviation sensitivityvalues, between the 0.1 and the 99.9 percentiles, are 1.0±0.0,1.033±0.001, 0.980±0.002, and 0.0064±0.0003, respectively. In addition,the mean and standard deviation of the first second, and infinity normsare 962±52, 1.47±0.08, and 0.026±0.004, respectively. The results showthat the FFF generated PSMs show the same trends, as do the WFF PSMs.

While the flattened and FFF beams separately indicate PSMenergy-independence, together they show 0.3% differences near the imagercenter/beam central axis as shown in FIG. 5E. To investigate thisdifference, an inter-comparison is performed of 6 MV open fieldmeasurements acquired at SID equal to 100 cm prior and subsequent topixels correction with a PSM generated by the same signal and theFFF-generated PSM in FIGS. 7A and 7B. FIGS. 7A & 7B show raw andPSM-corrected profiles through the center of the EPID for the 6 MVflattened beam measured at SID=100 cm in the X and Y directions,respectively for 40×30 and 20×20 cm² fields. The high frequency signalshows the raw EPID signals, the low frequency signal shows the signalscorrected with the PSM generated with the 6 MV FFF beam measured atSID=180 cm. The “x” markers show a sparse sampling of the signalscorrected with the PSM generated with the 6 MV flattened beam at SID=100cm. The signals, corrected with 6 MV FFF PSM, reproduce the smoothfluence-signal, and illustrate energy independence. The profilescorrected with the FFF PSM reproduce the fluence-signal and maintain theflattened beams output, horns, and fall off. The symmetry of the rawfields in the x-direction and the rise in the EPID signal due to thebackscattering in the y-profiles can be easily identified whencorrecting the raw signal using both PSMs indistinctly. Similar resultsare obtained for 10 and 15 MV flattened beam measurements when correctedwith PSM generated with FFF beams. Considering the PSMs measured by the15 different beam configurations as independent measures of the samequantity, statistical analyses find that the average pixel-wiseprecision is ˜0.45% and the maximum pixel-wise deviation is ˜0.92%. Thedifference in PSMs generated by flattened and FFF beams in addition tothe impact of SID on the PSM is elaborated upon in later sections of thepresent disclosure.

Output Position-Invariance Validation

FIGS. 8A and 8B show overlays the measurements of the x and y-slitposition-invariance output validation. FIGS. 8A & 8B show overlays ofPSM-corrected 6 MV measurements. During the delivery of the x-slits, theEPID maximum and minimum displacements were 15 cm in the positivex-direction and 16 cm in the negative x-direction. While, at thedelivery of the y-slits, the maximum and the minimum displacements forthe EPID panel were 6 cm and 7 cm in the positive (couch) and negative(gantry) y directions, respectively. Each image was corrected forbackground dark-field, pixel defect map and the 6 MV FFF pixelssensitivity map shown in FIG. 5B. For each slit in FIGS. 8A and 8B, thedelivery was 250 MU with a 6 MV beam with flattening filter with themeasurement SID equal to 100 cm. The output of each radiation slit iscomputed as the sum of all pixel values within the central 80% of theslit field size in the x and y directions to reduce slit alignment/beamfall off affects. The output is then normalized by the mean output ofall slits and shown in FIGS. 8C and 8D. FIGS. 8C and 8D show therelative output from the x and y profiles, respectively. The error bars,i.e., 0.57%, emphasize the standard deviation in measured outputs,within same session, by EPID model aS1000. The relative outputvariations, shown in FIGS. 8C and 8D, are mostly within ±0.5%, which isindicated by the dashed lines. The residual output variation in FIGS. 8Cand 8D also includes components from the PSM, machine output variations,background removal and the END measurement reproducibility. The errorbars, at slit indices equal to 0, show the standard deviations inoutputs of radiation deliveries for flood field EPID signals. A cinesequence of EPID images (i.e., 944 frames delivered in same session) for6 MV beam with flattening filter measured at SID equal to 100 cm wereused to estimate the error bars. The error bar data werebackground-corrected only (i.e., neither PSM nor pixel defect map wereapplied). The standard deviation was minimized through integration of nconsecutive images, where n=1 to 100, to eliminate variations due to theperiodic banding artifacts.

The measured outputs are self-consistent within the beam deliveryvariation of ˜0.57%. The pixel-by-pixel evaluation of the relativestandard deviation finds that 66% (1-std deviation) are within 0.76% forthe irradiations of FIGS. 8A and 8B, indicating consistency between theslit measurements and presently disclosed PSM within 0.76%.

PSM Stability

The EPID PSM is robust to local changes in pixels sensitivity over time.For 6 MV flattened beam, the cross-correlation coefficient is 0.9995between pixel sensitivity maps generated on images acquired 3 monthsapart. The max, min, mean and standard deviation of the percentdifference between the two PSMs, were 0.66%, −0.39%, 0.01%, and 0.07%,respectively. In short, the PSM is stable enough for long-term absoluteEPID dosimetry and insensitive to local damage to the END or itsassociated electronics.

An approach to compute the PSM of the MV EPID detector is discussedabove using a model which utilizes the fundamental features of MVradiation from linacs; the underlying energy fluence is smooth andsomewhat symmetric. Here, surface-fit polynomials are used to measuredEPID flood fields to ascertain the underlying smooth fluence-signal andextract the PSM. The PSM generation does not require lateral shifts ofthe detector array utilized by other existing methods, hence, it shouldbe applicable to EPIDs in fixed locations with respect to the linachead. Within fitting errors, the PSM is independent of the incidentphoton energy fluence; both flattened and FFF beams were tested.Changing the SID changed the position of the incident energy fluence onthe imager (with the energy fluence broadening with increasing SID), butdid not change the generated PSM. Because the PSM is energy independentit can be used to correct through-phantom; patient EPID signals wwithout any further pixel response modification.

The PSM accounts for the relative changes in screen response, individualpixel size (i.e., ability to capture light photons from the screen andthe direct photon interactions in the photo diode) and the detectorread-out electronics. Monte Carlo simulations show that EPID energydeposition kernels from mono-energetic photons vary in width andintegral energy deposition, indicating that the absolute response of theimager per photon is energy dependent. For FFF beams, the energyspectrum is nearly constant across the beam, thus, per irradiation, thepixel energy dependent response is position-invariant. As the beamenergy increases from 6 MV FFF to 10 MV FFF, this beam-specific,absolute pixel response will decrease. For flattened beams, the energyspectrum is hardened on the beam central axis compared with the beamperiphery. Therefore, the relative energy dependent response aspectswill be a radial symmetric component whose magnitude is dictated by thedifferential energy response of the screen/pixel from the hardest partof the photon spectrum (the beam central axis to the softest part of thephoton spectrum (the beam periphery where the flattening filter isthinnest). The measured PSM independence (within ˜0.5%) suggests thatdifferential energy variations across each flattened or FFF beam have anegligible effect on the relative pixel response. Indeed, it has beenshown that above 2 MeV, integral kernel energy deposition varies by1×10⁻⁴ per MeV, confirming the low differential energy dependence.Hence, while the absolute pixel response changes between beamconfigurations, the changes are nearly constant across the PSM, which isa measure of relative pixel response.

When both WFF and FFF beams are available on a linac, the premise thatsimple models are preferred over complex ones suggests that FFF arepreferred for PSM acquisition. FFF beams have a simple convex surfacefor which n≥5 degree polynomial produce a high quality surface fit,while WFF beams may have a central bump and horns, for which n≥12 degreepolynomial is required for a quality fit. The profile features of FIGS.6A and 6B show that for flattened or for FFF beams, PSM slow-varyingcomponents are indistinct within ˜0.5% and the fast-varying componentsare indistinct within ˜0.1%. Similarly, when multiple SIDs areavailable, larger SIDs are preferred as they broaden the slow-varyingfluence-signal. Direct comparison of 6 MV FFF generated PSMs atdifferent 100 and 180 cm SIDs show <0.1% differences (FIGS. 6A and 6B).Overall, it was found that PSMs generated with FFF beams at the largestSID available for the EPID yield the highest quality fit.

On the other hand, for flattened beams, the in-air energy fluencesurface has horn/spindle-like toroid features which are difficult tocapture in fitting even with relatively high order polynomial terms.Moreover, due to the symmetry and the relative number of pixels, theedges pixels dominate the fit compared to the fit at the central region,resulting in a poorer fit near the beam central axis harder forflattened beams. Like the FFF beam, increasing the SID reduces energyfluence gradient, improving the surface fit and PSM, however, additionalsteps can be taken to further improve the PSM quality. For example, slabor custom shaped attenuators would reduce the beam horns and likelyimprove the quality of the surface fit, Special mathematical models maybe developed for specific attenuators such that it best captures thefluence-signal features and leaves out diode detectors variations. Whensurface fitting is utilized, the fit quality should be confirmed bycross-checking raw and fitted profiles and/or residuals from the fittingto verify that the surface fit reproduced the features of the underlyingfluence.

Polynomial-based surface fitting is used in various examples todetermine the shape of the underlying fluence-signal due to itsintuitive simplicity. However, other surface fitting, regional-surfacefitting, weighted-surface fitting, signal smoothing, low-pass filtering,or signal frequency decomposition methods may also work for determiningthe underlying fluence-signal. As the polynomial surface fitting yieldsan acceptable PSM, i.e., PSM that preserve fluence-signal features anddoes not alter the local signal patches, inter-comparison of alternativefluence-signal determination methods outside the scope of this study canbe considered, Such methods may be beneficial when highly accurate PSMare required and FIT-beams are not available.

It was found that the PSM was stable at the <1% level for measurementsseparated by 3 months. In contrast to prior approaches to determiningPSM that found energy/modality dependence for the PSM, it was found thatusing the method(s) according to some aspects described herein, the PSMis energy/modality independent for photons. A possible reason for thisis that prior approaches for determining PSM did not separate the imagerbackscatter signal from the PSM, while the PSM determined hereinexcludes the backscatter signal which varies as a function of energy.

Computationally, method(s) according to some aspects described hereinexcludes backscatter from the PSM because the non-uniform backscatterresults in a slowly varying signal for the open field irradiations usedin determining the PSM. For example, at 6 MV, the backscattered signalmay be modeled as ˜14 cm FWHM Gaussian distribution. This low frequencysignal component is captured by the fluence-fitting polynomials andexcluded from the PSM. From a physics standpoint, the present methodexcludes backscatter since it is induced by the incident energy fluence,thus, backscatter is part of the overall fluence signal. For PSMs thatexclude backscatter, calculations to be compared with PSM corrected EPIDmeasurements need to account for backscatter signal components in thecalculational model. Such inclusion has been accomplished with analyticand Monte Carlo-based EPID calculation modules, which can then accountfor the changing backscatter location as a function of imager position.

Because method(s) according to some aspects described herein considersall low-frequency components of the signal to be fluence-induced, themethod(s) are susceptible to non-fluence induced low frequency signalperturbations. For example, if the EPID screen had a linear decrease inlight output response along in the x-direction, the low-frequency fitwould capture that change in response, erroneously attributing the slopeto the fluence-signal, not the pixel sensitivity map. Hence, thePSM-corrected signal would show a linear tilt in the x-direction.Because of this possibility, there may not be absolute PSM accuracyusing method(s) according to some aspects described herein. However,accuracy can be assessed by comparing the consistency of the correctedEPID signal with respect to other measurement methods as has been doneothers. Here, the accuracy with respect to a series of shifted panelmeasurements are bounded, finding consistency within the 0.76%. Forimagers in a fixed geometry, accuracy can be established by comparisonwith an independent dosimetry system, such as a scanning detector,detector array, or film, with e.g. Monte Carlo calculations of the ratiobetween the verification dosimeter and the EPID to account fordifferences in the detector systems inherent energy response. The 0.76%PSM accuracy is limited by the inherent uncertainties in the slitmeasurements used to establish the accuracy. The PSM precision is˜0.45%. With this accuracy and precision, PSMs determined with method(s)according to some aspects described herein should be adequate for manyclinical tasks. However, as different clinical tasks have differenttolerance limits, the physicist should ensure the post-PSM-appliedmeasurand accuracy and precision is adequate for each particularclinical task.

Compared with prior work, method(s) according to some aspects describedherein do not require multiple measurements while shifting the imagerbeneath a fixed radiation field. Since most shifting methods rely onoverlapping features to derive the PSM, non-overlap regions (near theimager boundary) do not have accurate values. The method(s) according tosome aspects described herein are not subject to this limitation. Thebuild-up of error in detector calibration factors inherent toshift-based techniques has been reported with other detector systems.For 2-D diode array calibration, it was found that 0.3% linac symmetryvariations between measurements led to up to 1.2% calibration errors.For a 251 ion chamber array, it has been found that 0.1% beam shapeperturbations can lead to 2% calibration errors. In such instances,error build-up is inherent to shifting techniques and that the errorpropagation is proportional to the number of detection channels. Theroot causes of the error-buildup are differences in beam output, beamprofile, pixel sensitivity, and scatter conditions between successiveirradiations.

To quantify the PSM error propagation inherent to the shifting methodfor aS1000 EPID, simplistic simulations were conducted to determine theeffects of offset errors, machine output variation, and signal ghosting.The simulation began with an assumed underlying smooth 6 MV flattenedbeam image and an assumed PSM with 3% pixel-to-pixel variance.Simulations mimicked measurements with the addition of theaforementioned variations, reconstructed the PSM from thosemeasurements, then compared the assumed and reconstructed PSMs. It wasfound that single pixel misalignment in the imager shift would result in≥1% PSM deviations in 6% of the EPID panel pixels; a 0.1% machine outputvariation between measurements would result in up-to 5% pixelsensitivity errors; and that a 0.1% background offset (mimickingghosting) could result in ≥5% errors in 85% of EPID pixels. Priorapproaches utilized sequential calibration field and dark-fieldirradiations to minimize the effect of the ˜1% image ghosting and small(1 cm) imager offsets to minimize the change in scatter conditionsinherent to the aS1000 imager (which has non-uniform backscatter).

While the simulation confirmed the error build-up inherent to theshifting methods (specifically, methods referenced in this work), imagepre-processing and/or smoothing of prior work by others was notperformed. It has been noted that the need to manipulate the PSM map toreduce the noise and the discontinuities at the junction of the shiftingsegments, while some others applied an un-described smoothing filter onthe images prior to computing the PSM. These steps may be helpful tosuppress errors propagation in the shifting method. However,intuitively, such manipulations increase the correlations betweenneighboring pixels response. By combining smoothing and shifting,perturbation of singular EPID pixel affects the full EPID surface. Ithas been discovered herein through the experimenting that un-maskederrors (bad-pixel regions) propagate from a damaged location on the EPIDto remote readings when a shifting method is used to generate the PSM.On the other hand, with method(s) according to some aspects describedherein, the impact of a dead region on the END detector array is eitherreadily detected, or remains local. Moreover, in a region of the signaldiscontinuity, due to damaged pixel diode detectors, a low orderpolynomial fit is unable to provide a good fit, making for easydetection of the bad pixel region. Unless a substantial continuous areaof the EPID is defective, method(s) according to some aspects describedherein are very robust to dead pixels in a way that protects theunderlying signal, not the bad individual pixel readings.

The 1.39% range of PSM pixel calibration factors that is observed, i.e.the FWHM of FIGS. 5C and 5D, are similar to published residualvariations. It has been reported that dose variability with detectordisplacement was reduced to <1% post PSM correction. Some prior PSMvalidation relied on intercomparing profiles from different “matched”linacs, finding 1-2% differences acceptable and 1-D 1.5%/1.5 mm gammapassing rates of >92% for photons. The differences in method(s)according to some aspects described herein are less than this level.

Presented herein is an approach to generate the pixel sensitivity mapfor the MV electronic portal imaging devices of linear accelerators. Themethod(s) according to some aspects described herein do not requireshifting the imager, therefore is applicable for EPIDs in a fixedgeometry with respect to the treatment head. The method(s) according tosome aspects described herein are premised upon the fact that the energyfluence output from MV beams is smooth with low gradients. Therefore,the raw measured EPID signal can be decomposed into a smooth surfaceproduced by the unattenuated and/or attenuated incident radiation and ahigh frequency component which is due to pixel-to-pixel responsesensitivity variations. In some examples, up to 12^(th) order polynomialsurface fits were used to capture the low frequency component. Thequality of a resultant PSMs is dependent on the quality of polynomialsurface fit utilized. The most accurate PSM is found for 6 MV FFF beamsmeasured at SID equal to 180 cm with 10^(th) polynomial model. Withinfitting errors, the PSM is found to be independent of beam energy for 6,and 10 MV FFF beams within ≤0.1%, as well as 6, 10, and 15 MV flattenedbeams within ≤0.24%, which makes the 6 MV FFF PSM suitable forcorrecting both flattened and FFF EPID signals regardless of the energy.

EXAMPLES AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Practice of certain aspects of the present disclosure will be still morefully understood from the following examples and experimental results,which are presented herein for illustration only and should not beconstrued as limiting the present disclosure in any way.

Method and System to Determine the Dosimetric Pixel Sensitivity Matrixfor Medical Imagers Description

In radiation oncology, medical imagers can be used as radiationdosimeters. This requires that the pixels of the imagers be calibratedin terms of dosimetric response, which differs from the non-dosimetricflood field calibration normally used to obtain acceptable images forviewing.

Prior work on dosimetric calibration of imagers require shifting theimaging detector under a fixed radiation field, using the correlationbetween pixels to derive calibration factors. Drawbacks of this methodare 1) it requires that the imaging panel can be moved with respect tothe radiation source and 2) it is highly susceptible to errors due touncertainties in the distance moved and errors due to variabilities inthe radiation source.

In some aspects, the present disclosure proposes a new method and systemin which the source and imager remain in a fixed geometry forcalibration. The method(s) and system(s) according to some aspectsdescribed herein take advantage that radiation fields used forcalibration are smooth surfaces with known maximum gradients. Deviationsbetween a measured calibration image and the smooth surface are due todosimetric pixel sensitivity variations, hence, the ratio of the surfaceand the calibration image is the dosimetric pixel intensity map.

From a measured image, multiple methods can be used to determine theshape of the smooth surface, including Fourier decomposition, surfacefitting, and nearly any image denoising technique.

An aspect of an implementation of the present disclosure provides asystem, method and computer readable medium for, among other things, aregression-based approach to compute the pixels gain map of linearaccelerator portal imaging devices.

An aspect of an implementation of the present disclosure provides asystem, method and computer readable medium for, among other things,determining the dosimetric pixel sensitivity matrix for medical imagers.

Regression-Based Method and System to Compute the Pixels Sensitivity Mapof MV Portal Imaging Devices

Purpose: To determine the pixel sensitivity map (PSM) for an amorphoussilicon electronic portal imaging device (EPID) using a single floodfield signal.

Methods: A raw acquired EPID signal may be decomposed into the incidentparticle fluence signal, the inherent pixels gain, and the backgroundsignal. Particle fluence varies slowly and is locallyspatially-constant. Pixel response is a fast and abrupt varying signalwhich perturbs the local fluence response. The background signal is dueto the EPID panel electronics, and is determined during radiationabsence. To determine the PSM, the background signal is first correctedfor. Then, a regression model is applied that captures the underlyingslowly varying features of the corrected EPID signal. The capturedfluence signal is then used to decouple the PSM signal from thecorrected EPID signal. To validate the generated PSM, it has beenconfirmed herein that an open field output is EPID-position independentand results herein are compared to prior PSM generation methods.

Results: The END pixel gain values are normally distributed with meanvalue of 1.0 and standard deviation of 0.01 for 6 MV beams with andwithout the flattening filter. Model validation shows that a PSM,generated with this method, alters an open field output value by <1.0%.Flattening-filter free beams are found to generate PSMs which arewell-described by regression models. Post PSM application, the processedsignal is EPID-position independent.

Conclusion: According tom some aspect, the present disclosure providesan approach to generate the PSM for linac MV EPIDs. The method andsystem according to some implementations are based on the fact that theEPID signal may be decomposed into a smooth surface convolved withspatially-dependent pixels gain map. This method and system does notrequire shifting the EPID panel, enabling it PSM generation for linacswith fixed EPIDS, nor requires multiple EPID panel irradiations.

This approach improves EPID transit dosimetry and enables automatic EPIDsignal calibration.

An aspect of an implementation of the present disclosure provides asystem, method and computer readable medium for, among other things, aregression-based method and system to compute the pixels sensitivity mapof MV portal imaging devices.

ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES

1. A method for providing) a) the dosimetric pixel sensitivity matrixfor medical imagers, b) the shape of the smooth surface, includingFourier decomposition, surface fitting, and nearly any image denoisingtechnique, or c) a regression-based approach to compute the pixels gainmap of linear accelerator portal imaging devices, as described herein.

2. The method according to example 1, including each and every novelfeature or combination of features disclosed herein.

3. A system for providing a) the dosimetric pixel sensitivity matrix formedical imagers, b) the shape of the smooth surface, including Fourierdecomposition, surface fitting, and nearly any image denoisingtechnique, or c) a regression-based approach to compute the pixels gainmap of linear accelerator portal imaging devices, as described herein.

4. The system according to example 3, including each and every novelfeature or combination of features disclosed herein.

5. A computer-readable storage medium having computer-executableinstructions stored thereon which, when executed by one or moreprocessors, cause one or more computers to perform functions forperforming a) the dosimetric pixel sensitivity matrix for medicalimagers, b) the shape of the smooth surface, including Fourierdecomposition, surface fitting, and nearly any image denoisingtechnique, or c) a regression-based approach to compute the pixels gainmap of linear accelerator portal imaging devices, as described herein.

6. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 5, including each andevery novel feature or combination of features disclosed herein.

It should be appreciated that the logical operations described hereinwith respect to the various figures may be implemented (1) as a sequenceof computer implemented ads or program modules (i.e., software) runningon a computing device (e.g., the computing device described in FIG. 9 ),(2) as interconnected machine logic circuits or circuit modules (i.e.,hardware) within the computing device and/or (3) a combination ofsoftware and hardware of the computing device. Thus, the logicaloperations discussed herein are not limited to any specific combinationof hardware and software. The implementation is a matter of choicedependent on the performance and other requirements of the computingdevice. Accordingly, the logical operations described herein arereferred to variously as operations, structural devices, acts, ormodules. These operations, structural devices, acts and modules may beimplemented in software, in firmware, in special purpose digital logic,and any combination thereof. It should also be appreciated that more orfewer operations may be performed than shown in the figures anddescribed herein. These operations may also be performed in a differentorder than those described herein.

Referring to FIG. 9 , an example computing device 900 upon whichembodiments of the present disclosure may be implemented is illustrated.For example, the controller 108 described herein may be implemented as acomputing device, such as computing device 900. It should be understoodthat the example computing device 900 is only one example of a suitablecomputing environment upon which embodiments of the present disclosuremay be implemented. Optionally, the computing device 900 can be awell-known computing system including, but not limited to, personalcomputers, servers, handheld or laptop devices, multiprocessor systems,microprocessor-based systems, network personal computers (PCs),minicomputers, mainframe computers, embedded systems, and/or distributedcomputing environments including a plurality of any of the above systemsor devices. Distributed computing environments enable remote computingdevices, which are connected to a communication network or other datatransmission medium, to perform various tasks. In the distributedcomputing environment, the program modules, applications, and other datamay be stored on local and remote computer storage media.

In an embodiment of the present disclosure, the computing device 900 maycomprise two or more computers in communication with each other thatcollaborate to perform a task. For example, but not by way oflimitation, an application may be partitioned in such a way as to permitconcurrent and parallel processing of the instructions of theapplication. Alternatively, the data processed by the application may bepartitioned in such a way as to permit concurrent and/or parallelprocessing of different portions of a data set by the two or morecomputers. In an embodiment, virtualization software may be employed bythe computing device 900 to provide the functionality of a number ofservers that is not directly bound to the number of computers in thecomputing device 900. For example, virtualization software may providetwenty virtual servers on four physical computers. In an embodiment, thefunctionality disclosed above may be provided by executing theapplication and/or applications in a cloud computing environment. Cloudcomputing may comprise providing computing services via a networkconnection using dynamically scalable computing resources. Cloudcomputing may be supported, at least in part, by virtualizationsoftware. A cloud computing environment may be established by anenterprise and/or may be hired on an as-needed basis from a third partyprovider. Some cloud computing environments may comprise cloud computingresources owned and operated by the enterprise as well as cloudcomputing resources hired and/or leased from a third party provider.

In its most basic configuration, computing device 900 typically includesat least one processing unit 920 and system memory 930. Depending on theexact configuration and type of computing device, system memory 930 maybe volatile (such as random access memory (RAM)), non-volatile (such asread-only memory (ROM), flash memory, etc.), or some combination of thetwo. This most basic configuration is illustrated in FIG. 9 by dashedline 910. The processing unit 920 may be a standard programmableprocessor that performs arithmetic and logic operations necessary foroperation of the computing device 900. While only one processing unit920 is shown, multiple processors may be present. Thus, whileinstructions may be discussed as executed by a processor, theinstructions may be executed simultaneously, serially, or otherwiseexecuted by one or multiple processors. The computing device 900 mayalso include a bus or other communication mechanism for communicatinginformation among various components of the computing device 900.

Computing device 900 may have additional features/functionality. Forexample, computing device 900 may include additional storage such asremovable storage 940 and non-removable storage 950 including, but notlimited to, magnetic or optical disks or tapes. Computing device 900 mayalso contain network connection(s) 980 that allow the device tocommunicate with other devices such as over the communication pathwaysdescribed herein. The network connection(s) 980 may take the form ofmodems, modem banks, Ethernet cards, universal serial bus (USB)interface cards, serial interfaces, token ring cards, fiber distributeddata interface (FDDI) cards, wireless local area network (WLAN) cards,radio transceiver cards such as code division multiple access (CDMA),global system for mobile communications (GSM), long-term evolution(LTE), worldwide interoperability for microwave access (WiMAX), and/orother air interface protocol radio transceiver cards, and otherwell-known network devices. Computing device 900 may also have inputdevice(s) 970 such as a keyboards, keypads, switches, dials, mice, trackballs, touch screens, voice recognizers, card readers, paper tapereaders, or other well-known input devices. Output device(s) 960 such asa printers, video monitors, liquid crystal displays (LCDs), touch screendisplays, displays, speakers, etc. may also be included. The additionaldevices may be connected to the bus in order to facilitate communicationof data among the components of the computing device 900. All thesedevices are well known in the art and need not be discussed at lengthhere.

The processing unit 920 may be configured to execute program codeencoded in tangible, computer-readable media. Tangible,computer-readable media refers to any media that is capable of providingdata that causes the computing device 900 (i.e., a machine) to operatein a particular fashion. Various computer-readable media may be utilizedto provide instructions to the processing unit 920 for execution.Example tangible, computer-readable media may include, but is notlimited to, volatile media, non-volatile media, removable media andnon-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storageof information such as computer readable instructions, data structures,program modules or other data. System memory 930, removable storage 940,and non-removable storage 950 are all examples of tangible, computerstorage media. Example tangible, computer-readable recording mediainclude, but are not limited to, an integrated circuit (e.g.,field-programmable gate array or application-specific IC), a hard disk,an optical disk, a magneto-optical disk, a floppy disk, a magnetic tape,a holographic storage medium, a solid-state device, RAM, ROM,electrically erasable program read-only memory (EEPROM), flash memory orother memory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile disks (DVD) or otheroptical storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic diskstorage or other magnetic storage devices.

It is fundamental to the electrical engineering and software engineeringarts that functionality that can be implemented by loading executablesoftware into a computer can be converted to a hardware implementationby well-known design rules. Decisions between implementing a concept insoftware versus hardware typically hinge on considerations of stabilityof the design and numbers of units to be produced rather than any issuesinvolved in translating from the software domain to the hardware domain.Generally, a design that is still subject to frequent change may bepreferred to be implemented in software, because re-spinning a hardwareimplementation is more expensive than re-spinning a software design.Generally, a design that is stable that will be produced in large volumemay be preferred to be implemented in hardware, for example in ahaapplication specific integrated circuit (ASIC), because for largeproduction runs the hardware implementation may be less expensive thanthe software implementation. Often a design may be developed and testedin a software form and later transformed, by well-known design rules, toan equivalent hardware implementation in an application specificintegrated circuit that hardwires the instructions of the software. Inthe same manner as a machine controlled by a new ASIC is a particularmachine or apparatus, likewise a computer that has been programmed andloaded with executable instructions may be viewed as a particularmachine or apparatus.

In an example implementation, the processing unit 920 may executeprogram code stored in the system memory 930. For example, the bus maycarry data to the system memory 930, from which the processing unit 920receives and executes instructions. The data received by the systemmemory 930 may optionally be stored on the removable storage 940 or thenon-removable storage 950 before or after execution by the processingunit 920.

It should be understood that the various techniques described herein maybe implemented in connection with hardware or software or, whereappropriate, with a combination thereof. Thus, the methods andapparatuses of the presently disclosed subject matter, or certainaspects or portions thereof, may take the form of program code (i.e.,instructions) embodied in tangible media, such as floppy diskettes,CD-ROMs, hard drives, or any other machine-readable storage mediumwherein, when the program code is loaded into and executed by a machine,such as a computing device, the machine becomes an apparatus forpracticing the presently disclosed subject matter. In the case ofprogram code execution on programmable computers, the computing devicegenerally includes a processor, a storage medium readable by theprocessor (including volatile and non-volatile memory and/or storageelements), at least one input device, and at least one output device.One or more programs may implement or utilize the processes described inconnection with the presently disclosed subject matter, e.g., throughthe use of an application programming interface (API), reusablecontrols, or the like. Such programs may be implemented in a high levelprocedural or object-oriented programming language to communicate with acomputer system. However, the program(s) can be implemented in assemblyor machine language, if desired. In any case, the language may be acompiled or interpreted language and it may be combined with hardwareimplementations.

Embodiments of the methods and systems may be described herein withreference to block diagrams and flowchart illustrations of methods,systems, apparatuses and computer program products. It will beunderstood that each block of the block diagrams and flowchartillustrations, and combinations of blocks in the block diagrams andflowchart illustrations, respectively, can be implemented by computerprogram instructions. These computer program instructions may be loadedonto a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or otherprogrammable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such thatthe instructions which execute on the computer or other programmabledata processing apparatus create a means for implementing the functionsspecified in the flowchart block or blocks.

These computer program instructions may also be stored in acomputer-readable memory that can direct a computer or otherprogrammable data processing apparatus to function in a particularmanner, such that the instructions stored in the computer-readablememory produce an article of manufacture including computer-readableinstructions for implementing the function specified in the flowchartblock or blocks. The computer program instructions may also be loadedonto a computer or other programmable data processing apparatus to causea series of operational steps to be performed on the computer or otherprogrammable apparatus to produce a computer-implemented process suchthat the instructions that execute on the computer or other programmableapparatus provide steps for implementing the functions specified in theflowchart block or blocks.

Accordingly, blocks of the block diagrams and flowchart illustrationssupport combinations of means for performing the specified functions,combinations of steps for performing the specified functions and programinstruction means for performing the specified functions. It will alsobe understood that each block of the block diagrams and flowchartillustrations, and combinations of blocks in the block diagrams andflowchart illustrations, can be implemented by special purposehardware-based computer systems that perform the specified functions orsteps, or combinations of special purpose hardware and computerinstructions.

While several embodiments have been provided in the present disclosure,it should be understood that the disclosed systems and methods may beembodied in many other specific forms without departing from the spiritor scope of the present disclosure. The present examples are to beconsidered as illustrative and not restrictive, and the intention is notto be limited to the details given herein. For example, the variouselements or components may be combined or integrated in another systemor certain features may be omitted or not implemented.

Also, techniques, systems, subsystems, and methods described andillustrated in the various embodiments as discrete or separate may becombined or integrated with other systems, modules, techniques, ormethods without departing from the scope of the present disclosure.Other items shown or discussed as directly coupled or communicating witheach other may be indirectly coupled or communicating through someinterface, device, or intermediate component, whether electrically,mechanically, or otherwise. Other examples of changes, substitutions,and alterations are ascertainable by one skilled in the art and could bemade without departing from the spirit and scope disclosed herein.

What is claimed is:
 1. An image calibration method, comprising:capturing a flood field signal with an image detector from incidentenergy fluence produced by a signal source; separating frequencycomponents of the flood field signal into frequency componentscharacteristic of variations in the incident energy fluence andfrequency components characteristic of pixel-to-pixel sensitivityvariations of the image detector; and determining a pixel sensitivitymatrix from the flood field signal and the frequency componentscharacteristic of variations in the incident energy fluence.
 2. Theimage calibration method of claim 1, wherein separating frequencycomponents of the flood field signal comprises: generating afluence-signal-fitted model that models the frequency componentscharacteristic of variations in the incident energy fluence.
 3. Theimage calibration method of claim 2, wherein the fluence-signal-fittedmodel has a frequency cut-off characteristic of topological propertiesof the incident energy fluence.
 4. The image calibration method of claim3, wherein the frequency cut-off is a maximum in-field energy fluencegradient of the incident energy fluence.
 5. The image calibration methodof claim 2, wherein the fluence-signal-fitted model is a surface-fitpolynomial model, a surface fitting model, a regional-surface fittingmodel, a weighted-surface fitting model, a signal smoothing model, alow-pass filter model, a signal frequency decomposition model, a Fourieranalysis model, or an image denoising model.
 6. The image calibrationmethod of claim 2, wherein the fluence-signal-fitted model satisfies acondition that a derivative of an incident energy fluence integral withrespect to the fluence-signal-fitted model is minimized.
 7. The imagecalibration method of claim 2, further comprising: correcting the floodfield signal for background dark-field and/or bad pixels to produce acorrected image signal.
 8. The image calibration method of claim 7,wherein determining the pixel sensitivity matrix comprises of adjustingthe corrected image signal based on the fluence-signal-fitted model. 9.The image calibration method of claim 1, further comprising: capturingan image with the image detector of an object irradiated by energyfluence produced by the signal source; and correcting the image of theobject using the pixel sensitivity matrix.
 10. The image calibrationmethod of claim 1, wherein the image detector is an electronic portalimaging device.
 11. An imaging system, comprising: a signal source; animage detector; and a controller configured to calibrate the imagedetector, wherein the controller is configured to: capture a flood fieldsignal with the image detector from incident energy fluence produced bythe signal source; separate frequency components of the flood fieldsignal into frequency components characteristic of variations in theincident energy fluence and frequency components characteristic ofpixel-to-pixel sensitivity variations of the image detector; anddetermine a pixel sensitivity matrix from the flood field signal and thefrequency components characteristic of variations in the incident energyfluence.
 12. The imaging system of claim 11, wherein to separatefrequency components of the flood field signal, the controller isfurther configured to: generate a fluence-signal-fitted model thatmodels the frequency components characteristic of variations in theincident energy fluence.
 13. The imaging system of claim 12, wherein thefluence-signal-fitted model has a frequency cut-off characteristic oftopological properties of the incident energy fluence.
 14. The imagingsystem of claim 13, wherein the frequency cut-off is a maximum in-fieldenergy fluence gradient of the incident energy fluence.
 15. The imagingsystem of claim 12, wherein the fluence-signal-fitted model is asurface-fit polynomial model, a surface fitting model, aregional-surface fitting model, a weighted-surface fitting model, asignal smoothing model, a low-pass filter model, signal frequencydecomposition model, a Fourier analysis model, or an image denoisingmodel.
 16. The imaging system of claim 12, wherein thefluence-signal-fitted model satisfies a condition that a derivative ofan incident energy fluence integral with respect to thefluence-signal-fitted model is minimized.
 17. The imaging system ofclaim 12, wherein the controller is further configured to: correct theflood field signal for background dark-field and/or bad pixels toproduce a corrected image signal.
 18. The imaging system of claim 17,wherein to determine the pixel sensitivity matrix, the controller isfurther configured to: adjust the corrected image signal based on thefluence-signal-fitted model.
 19. The imaging system of claim 11, whereinthe controller is further configured to: capture an image with the imagedetector of an object irradiated by energy fluence produced by thesignal source; and correct the image of the object using the pixelsensitivity matrix.
 20. The imaging system of claim 11, wherein theimage detector is an electronic portal imaging device.